Re: [ietf-dkim] [Technical Errata Reported] RFC6376 (4926)

[Dave Crocker <[e-mail]>]

On 2/7/2017 5:52 PM, Roland Turner wrote:
> As a passing engineer who doesn't spend that much time spelunking IETF
> processes, a question that appears to be begged here is why the
> distinction matters. This is not immediately clear from any of the
> Status and Type of RFC Errata page
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/errata-definitions/>, the How to Report
> Errata page <https://www.rfc-editor.org/how-to-report/>, or the FAQ
> <https://www.rfc-editor.org/faq/>.

<rant>

In recent years -- and by way of demonstrated some basic process 
problems, I'll note that I have no idea when the current constraints on 
the process were put in place -- the RFC errata process got moved into a 
very specialized place, to the exclusion of a number of useful 
functions.  It's not that what it does do isn't useful, it's that it has 
become idiosyncractic.  And, yeah, it does not appear to me that most 
folk know what it is and is not useful form.

</rant>

d/

-- 

   Dave Crocker
   Brandenburg InternetWorking
   bbiw.net
_______________________________________________
NOTE WELL: This list operates according to
http://mipassoc.org/dkim/ietf-list-rules.html